Content count

Joined

Last visited

About Azor Ahype

i honestly just want a functional damage model with body armor. im tired of bleeding from every little scratch and there needs to be a bigger difference between INS and conventional factions. shit even INS is getting tank v tank gameplay. its simply not even enjoyable to play infantry at this point. as they keep adding more vehicles theres hardly going to even be any more inf gameplay lol

not trying to discredit your opinion, but its pretty clear that in your link the guy got shot through the side of his torso, missing the plates completely(he wasnt even shot by a pistol so idk what your point about that was) also spalling prevents shrapnel from rounds bouncing into exposed areas of your body. my main issue with the games damage system is the fact that every time you get hit you bleed pretty much, when in reality body armor would totally prevent that from ever happening. im not talking about being invincible im well aware that body armor has weak points and stress limits, but currently as it stands .308 is actually inferior compared to 5.56 due to recoil. in reality a vest will easily stop a 5.56 NATO round and even .308 NATO, my suggestion is reduce the chest shot damage to conventional factions and remove the bleed from 5.56, while keeping the bleed for .308, this will still allow you to drop someone with 2 .308 rounds to the chest but maybe 3-4 to the chest with 5.56(also with no bleed effects) this would make CQC combat actually interesting where shot placement suddenly starts to matter, as it stands you can just shoot someone 2 times in the chest even with a pistol and pretty much guarantee a kill, to sum it up the damage model is too one sided, every weapon behaves pretty much the same in the end, which is stupid if you ask me

you're right i shouldnt pigeonhole you. but when you get the same half baked reply just telling you to stop talking about something i truly believe has a place in the game, or when someone just tells me to go play a different game if i dont like it. lets be honest, thats not productive conversation at all. i wasnt trying to get political before, that dude just kept insisting i justify why i owned these things so i said screw it and just told him how it is. i also get what you mean about the kickstarter, im not saying they promised body armor but people talking about those things are dismissed just as much as me, if not more actually

i cant really go into detail about why i own body armor but lets just say its "political in nature"(the mod came in and deleted some comments when i brought it up before so ill leave it there) and honestly imo they could implement body armor in a way that isnt 100% realistic that still lends to enhance the immersion of the gameplay(things like shrapnel or low caliber rounds to the torso could have reduced dmg with no bleed for example) im not even opposed to them making you transition stances and even move slower with armor. imo you should become "dead" instantly from a simple headshot, medics should only be able to revive incapacitated soldiers, not dead ones(more stuff in general should kill you outright imo, it would make insurgents much more lethal with explosives) currently the way the game is balanced is bandage spam to pick up the guy who just got his head caved in by a tank shell, and i dont really think that promotes the kind of intimidation these vehicles/weapons should bring to the battle. to sum it up i dont think the way firefights play out in this game are balanced at all, there is no need to focus on shot placement because small caliber rounds are basically better for killing people than freaking mortars

dude i put my time and money into this game because it is appealing to me, just because i want a feature that plenty of other games have made work just fine i suddenly want to clean latrines? im tired of you guys and your baseless attacks against me for having an opinion, i want to see things properly represented(compare it to the people asking for bolt action snipers and pilotable CAS) it literally makes no sense why you wouldnt represent body armor in modern warfare, they literally made a WW2 based Squad game for people who want to fight in those settings. there is hardly any difference between Squad and PS without it tbh, im still waiting for someone to respond to my question about what makes these 2 games different without body armor. yet all i get are cheeky responses telling me to go play another game or to just shut up because im "obsessed with body armor". im a logical person in nature, and its highly illogical to just ignore a key facet of modern combat

@Filthy Crab i should also ask you what the difference between squad and post scriptum is then? both games are simply infantry slaughterfests without armor, the only difference being there wasnt body armor invented in WW2, so at least that historically makes some sense. can you name a reason besides "its fine how it is" that they would treat modern warfare like WW2? im genuinely interested in what you think

well considering i clicked on your profile and your account is barely 15 days old, i would have no way of knowing that... that being said, im not going to "go back to tarkov" i was using it as a damn example, i wasnt trying to start a freaking contest lol, i have 427 hours in the game dude... also if you arent willing to use another devs work as a reference for balanced gameplay you are being really biased to OWI on this one.

i agree with your statement completely, it could be balanced on the game mode side of things so that you arent put into a game where both teams have the exact same objective. INS launching a frontal assault to take a town would be suicidal(theres plenty of vids of them getting completely screwed trying to mimick combined arms tactics, but they tend to just get picked off on the way in because they dont have proper armor)

try escape from tarkov, put on the best armor in the game, then come back when a guy with a TT one shots you through the exposed part of your armor.(also no disrespect but i see you have only had your account for like 15 days, i dont know if you have enough hours to call something "balanced" or not yet)

i see what you mean, but what distinguishes this game from Post Scriptum then? without body armor you are just mowing down platoons of guys like its WW2. there needs to be a middle ground to satisfy everyone, because as it currently stands its very biased balancing

what this guy does is stupid but not illegal( PLEASE DONT DO WHAT THIS GUY DID)
that being said it shows what body armor really does when you are shot and the fact that it only really has an effect on whether or not you would take real damage. i dont really get how people can say it has no place in a game built around asymetric gameplay. it wouldnt be bad for game balance and it would fix this whole crappy "sit on a hill taking pot shots at each other" meta. you should be able to confidently move into an area as a conventional force with confidence that you can win a firefight. shot placement as it stands is pretty useless, you just shoot center mass all the time with no real thought about where your shots are landing, it promotes a lazy play style that goes against squads fundamental theme(thinking critically is most certainly one of those things) INS forces dont really utilize their ambush nature like they should in this game, IEDs are an afterthought even though they make up 60% of modern warfare casualties

so you are saying that having an actual downside would be bad game balance? im not sure i get what you are saying. yes INS should be more mobile because they dont have body armor, that compliments my point about their different playstlye being so effective. and slower transitions between stances makes just as much sense. you basically are proving my point that it could be done in a balanced way